Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) – Section 482 – Quashing of Proceedings – Petition for quashing of criminal complaint under the SC/ST Act and IPC sections due to compromise between parties – Settlement reached out of court with no coercion or undue influence – Emphasis on the legal system’s goal to reconcile social conflicts and minimize adverse societal impacts of disputes – Recognition of compromises in criminal disputes, barring grave offences involving governance, administration, or severe societal impact. [Para 1-5]

Supreme Court Guidelines – Compromise in Criminal Cases – Distinction between quashing criminal proceedings in High Court’s inherent jurisdiction and compounding offences in trial court – High Court’s power to quash proceedings based on nature and gravity of crime, and whether continuation of proceedings constitutes an abuse of legal process – Heinous offences and those under special statutes like the Prevention of Corruption Act not suitable for quashing based on compromise – Cases with a predominantly civil nature, like financial or matrimonial disputes, can be quashed if the parties have settled and continuation of proceedings would be unjust. [Para 6]

Decision – Present case suitable for quashing based on compromise – Complaint and subsequent proceedings under the SC/ST Act and relevant IPC sections against petitioners quashed, honoring the out-of-court settlement. [Para 7-8]

Cruelty as Ground for Divorce – Insufficient Evidence and Pleading – Family Court's grant of divorce on grounds of cruelty, not adequately pleaded in original petition or proven in trial - Respondent/husband initially filed citing desertion, later sought to amend to include cruelty – High Court in CRP No.1249 of 2014 set aside the amendment - Court's error in granting divorce on unpleaded, unproven cruelty ground [Paras 5, 12, 19].

Amendment to Petition Dismissed – Respondent's appellate-stage amendment attempt for including cruelty and desertion - Dismissed due to post-CRP No.1249 of 2014 ineligibility for amendment at this stage [Paras 13, 16].

Legal Principles on Granting Relief – Supreme Court judgments referenced - No relief on evidence outside pleadings - Decision cannot be based on unpleaded grounds - Case emphasis on pleaded issues only [Paras 9-11].

Decision – Appeal allowed - Family Court's order on cruelty-based divorce set aside - Lack of proper pleading and evidence leading to decision reversal [Para 20].

Civil Revision Petition – Amendment of Plaint – Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Revision against Trial Court’s order allowing amendments post evidence closure, challenged for being barred by limitation. [Paras 1-6]

Amendment of Plaint – Principles for Allowing Amendments – Supreme Court guidelines in Revajeetu Builders case – Necessity, bona fide, non-prejudicial, and limitation considerations for amendments. [Para 8]

Suit for Cancellation of Documents – Transformation to Declaration of Nullity – Proposed amendment based on Supreme Court’s dictum in Deccan Paper Mills case – Change from cancellation to declaration of nullity of Sale Deed. [Paras 10-11]

Opposition to Amendments – Change in Suit’s Basic Structure – Petitioner’s contention that amendments alter suit’s character and withdraw prior admissions – Application filed after 15 years without requisite procedural amendments. [Para 12]

Trial Court’s Mechanical Order – Lack of Reasoning and Consideration of Parties’ Contentions – High Court’s disapproval of such orders and emphasis on reasoned decisions. [Para 13]

Decision – Setting Aside Impugned Order – Remitting Back for Fresh Consideration – High Court directs de novo consideration in line with Apex Court’s guidelines in Revajeetu Builders case, with no order as to costs. [Paras 14-15]

Civil Procedure – Restoration of Dismissed Application – Challenge to the order dismissing the restoration application for Advocate Commissioner in I.A.No. 167 of 2017 – Emphasis on fair opportunity for hearing and decision on merits. [Para 1, 7, 9, 10, 11]

Legal Representation – Absence of Senior Counsel – Appellant’s application dismissed due to absence on scheduled date – Contention over lack of opportunity for representation and hearing. [Para 3, 7]

Judicial Procedure – Appointment of Advocate Commissioner – Respondent’s opposition to reappointment of Advocate Commissioner based on existing report – Court stresses on deciding the matter based on its merits. [Para 6, 8]

Decision – High Court’s intervention to ensure fair trial – Order dated 08.10.2018 set aside, directing lower court to restore and decide I.A.No. 167 of 2017 on merits within specified timeframe. [Para 10, 11]

Impleadment of Parties – Dismissal of Application for Impleadment in Property Suit – Petitioners sought to be impleaded as defendants, claiming a right over the property in question – Application dismissed by the lower court for lack of direct nexus with the main suit and for being a tactic to prolong proceedings – Revision filed against this dismissal. [Para 1-3, 5]

Application of Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC – Legal Principles for Impleadment – The Apex Court’s guidelines on when a court may add parties to a suit – Emphasis on the need for proper or necessary parties, contrasting with the plaintiff’s dominus litis right to choose litigants. [Para 6]

Arguments Against Impleadment – Petitioners accused of malafide intentions and delay – Claimed right over the property after a long period, raising doubts on the genuineness of their claim – Respondents argue against the impleadment citing lack of evidence and improper application. [Para 7]

Legal Distinction in Impleadment – Apex Court’s distinction between property suits and declaratory suits regarding the interest required for impleadment – Necessity of a direct or legal interest rather than a mere commercial interest. [Para 8]

Court’s Analysis and Decision – Suit for declaration and permanent injunction – Court notes lack of proper explanation or evidence from petitioners regarding their claim – Observes delay and lack of initial action from petitioners – Dismisses revision for lack of merit and improper application for impleadment. [Para 10-14]

Habeas Corpus – Illegal Detention – Procedural Violations: Petitioner challenges detention order under Article 226, seeking release of detenue detained under A.P. Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1986. Argues illegal detention due to non-inclusion of bail information. [Para 1, 5]

Detention Order Review – Bail Information Critical: Court emphasizes the necessity of including bail information in detention orders. Lack of such information, especially in cases of conditional bail, deemed a vital procedural violation. [Para 8]

Decision – Detention Order Set Aside: Court finds the detention order illegal due to procedural violations and sets it aside, ordering the release of the detenue unless required for other cases. [Para 9, 10]

Eviction Suit – Landlord’s Bonafide Need – Eviction of tenant from shop premises under Section 16(1)(g) of the MRC Act – Suit based on landlord's bonafide need for second son – Earlier suit for elder son’s need dismissed – Eviction upheld by Trial and Appellate Courts. [Para 4, 9, 12, 20]

Dispute Over Shop's Area and Rent – Arguments about shop size and rent – Not central to eviction decision. [Para 7]

Sequential Suits for Family Members' Needs – Filing separate suits for different family members' needs permissible – No statutory restriction in MRC Act. [Para 12]

Challenge for Non-Disclosure and Previous Restaurant Closure – Tenant's argument on non-disclosure of other properties and landlord's past business decisions – Not affecting eviction decision. [Para 13, 15, 17]

Comparative Hardship Analysis – Consideration under Section 16(2) of MRC Act – Greater hardship to landlord than tenant – Tenant’s long occupation and landlord’s prolonged recovery efforts noted. [Para 22, 22-A]

Rejection of Additional Evidence in Appellate Court – Dismissal of tenant’s applications for additional evidence – Documents deemed repetitive or irrelevant. [Para 24, 26, 27]

Consideration of Admissions in Prior Litigation – Tenant’s admissions in previous suit reviewed – No bearing on established bonafide need. [Para 28]

Petition dismissed, eviction decree upheld – Execution proceedings stayed for four weeks post-judgment. [Para 29, 30]

Writ Petition – Quashing of Order – Quashing of order dated 20.10.2023 in Dhanbad Mahila P.S. Case No.30 of 2023 under section 82 Cr.PC – Petitioner, the husband in a case under section 498A IPC, had already complied with notice under section 41A Cr.PC and appeared before the investigating officer – Petitioner's non-pressing of prayer-(a) and focusing on prayer-(b) for quashing the impugned order. [Para 5]

Anticipatory Bail – Denial of Anticipatory Bail by Sessions Court and High Court – Petitioner's A.B.P. No.3077 of 2023 rejected by Sessions Judge and A.B.A. No.9253 of 2023 dismissed as withdrawn in High Court – Compulsion to withdraw due to issuance of process under section 82 Cr.PC. [Para 5, 7]

Supreme Court Guidelines – Reference to Supreme Court judgments in Satender Kumar Antil v. C.B.I (2022) and Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014) – Emphasis on guidelines regarding issuing process under section 82 Cr.P.C and arrest procedures in cases under section 498A IPC. [Para 5, 7]

Judicial Review – High Court's consideration of petitioner’s compliance with legal procedures and Supreme Court guidelines – Setting aside of impugned order dated 20.10.2023 and remittance of matter to the lower court for fresh proceedings in accordance with the law. [Para 7, 8, 9]

Criminal Proceedings – Quashing of Proceedings – Criminal proceedings against bank officials in a case involving missing jewelry from a bank locker quashed – Lack of evidence against petitioners, who were not sent for trial after police investigation – Alleged theft occurred, but no material implicating bank officials – Civil suit for the same incident pending. [Para 2, 5, 14-16]

Bank Locker Security – Operation and Custodianship – Bank’s procedures for locker operation outlined – Custodian's duties specified – Locker agreement not equivalent to bailment – Custody and possession of locker contents with bank, not equating to joint possession with hirer – Transaction of hiring a locker distinct from landlord-tenant relationship. [Para 9-11]

Jurisdiction of High Court – High Court's power to quash criminal proceedings at any stage if interference is justified – Utilization of such power in the absence of prima facie evidence against petitioners – Reference to Supreme Court cases emphasizing the importance of judicial discretion in quashing proceedings. [Para 14-15]

Decision – Criminal proceedings against the petitioners in Cr.M.P. Nos. 1519 of 2009, 627 of 2013, and 1078 of 2013 quashed – Civil suit to continue independently of this order. [Para 16-19]